OG 144

不能说existing 强调的是正存在。名词的后置修饰语中，很多定语从句可以转化为分词，分词短语的时态更模糊。也就是说定语从句的意思最明晰。分词短语更简洁，如果从前后文中可以获得时态信息，用分词更好。GMAT中可能会出现定从和分词，一般都是定从的时态有问题，分词短语作后置修饰语一般不会有时态错误，只有时态模糊。最模糊的是介词短语修饰，不仅时态模糊，动作也模糊。

比如在电影院里：

the man in the front row 知道 在哪里。  站？坐？躺？何时？都不知道。

the man sitting in the front row 知道坐着 在哪里，但不知道何时。

the man who was sitting in the front row 何时 坐着 在哪里 都知道了

请指正。

感觉有的时候分词修饰整体，that定语从句修饰局部，其区别好像非限定和限定性定语从句一样，比如这题：

1.            The Wallerstein study indicates that even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce occurring when a child.

(A)            occurring when a child

(B)            occurring when children

(C)            that occurred when a child

(D)            that occurred when they were children

(E)            that has occurred as each was a child

Choice D is best. The phrasing a divorce that occurred when they were children correctly uses the relative clause that occurred to modify a divorce and includes a pronoun and verb (they were) that refer unambiguously to their antecedent, men and women. Choice A incorrectly introduces the when... phrase with occurring, thus illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child; furthermore, the singular child does not agree with the plural men and women. B replaces child with children but otherwise fails to correct A's errors of structure and logic, and C corrects only the error created by occurring. Choice E includes an incorrect verb tense (has occurred) and wrongly replaces when with as. Also, each was does not properly refer to men and women.

因为分词和从句不不同，会造成意思的不同，但是感觉如果在意思相同的情况下，用分词比较简洁。但是我不明白下面这题

144. Efforts to equalize the funds available to school districts, a major goal of education reformers and many states in the 1970's, has not significantly reduced the gaps existing between the richest and poorest districts.

(A)              has not significantly reduced the gaps existing

(B)              has not been significant in reducing the gap that exists

(C)             has not made a significant reduction in the gap that exists

(D)             have not significantly reduced the gap that exists

(E)              have not been significant in a reduction of the gaps existing

In A, B, and C, the singular auxiliary verb has does not agree with the plural subject of the sentence, Efforts. In addition, B and C are wordy; significantly reduced will suffice here. Choice E uses a similarly wordy expression that changes the meaning of the sentence, stating not that the efforts have significantly reduced the gap but that they failed to play a significant role in some already-existing reduction of several gaps. Choice D, the best answer, is grammatically correct, clear, and concise.

我感觉两个意思是一样的，所以想请问NN，如果E改成

has not made a significant reduction in the gap existing是不是就对了？

偶这两天正在研究这个非限定和限定，分词和从句的区别，好像一下清楚一下糊涂的，有哪位NN帮忙仔细讲讲啊？

这类型的题有og 1,80,126,141,144,152,178,196,200,209,223,234,237可是感觉这些题某些这种感觉很清楚，某些又把我搞糊涂了。sigh，我不知道我在说些什么了

严重理解楼上心晴。分词和定从有时是蛮糊涂的。

对分词和定从的感觉, 我和tianwan相同，定从的优势在于可以准确表达时态，分词则较简洁。